OJ: Made In America

[Will James]

See now if you had said the De La Beckwith case I would have agreed. Because it was a murder case that the defense pandered to the race of the jury to get a verdict. But you said Jim Crow in reverse which was an institutional segregation of millions of people over close to a hundred years that limited their opportunities, freedoms, and engagement in society. So sorry if I don't see the correlation.

Jim Crow meant the era where whites got off because they were white.. We are in agreement with the De La Beckwith analogy.

 

[memphisbulldog]

See now if you had said the De La Beckwith case I would have agreed. Because it was a murder case that the defense pandered to the race of the jury to get a verdict. But you said Jim Crow in reverse which was an institutional segregation of millions of people over close to a hundred years that limited their opportunities, freedoms, and engagement in society. So sorry if I don't see the correlation.

Not to complicate this discussion any more than it already is, but:

1. The De La Beckwith analogy seems proper, but it is not.
2. He had an all white jury that voted 11-1 to convict. The one hold out said later she couldn't convict a minister of murder. The point is, the evidence indicated "guilty" and 11 white jurors voted guilty. The one holdout showed no evidence of voting against his guilt due to racism.
3. OJ was guilty. His jury did not convict him because he was a black man.

 

[1msucub]

Part four really gives you an inside look at the way the dream team manipulated the trial away from the facts of the case and how messed up the justice system can actually be.
I don't know how those lawyers and jurors can sleep at night after that circus.

 

[Will James]

Part four really gives you an inside look at the way the dream team manipulated the trial away from the facts of the case and how messed up the justice system can actually be.
I don't know how those lawyers and jurors can sleep at night after that circus.

Say what you will but Carl Douglas (one of OJ's lawyers) is a really funny guy. My favorite contributor in this documentary.

"If it had been a Latin jury we would have had pictures of OJ in a sombrero. There would have been a mariachi band playing out front."

 

[GOOD_DAWG2.0]

Racist**

 

[1msucub]

Say what you will but Carl Douglas (one of OJ's lawyers) is a really funny guy. My favorite contributor in this documentary.

"If it had been a Latin jury we would have had pictures of OJ in a sombrero. There would have been a mariachi band playing out front."

They served the best interest of their client. Morality be damned.

 

[Will James]

They served the best interest of their client. Morality be damned.

Agreed. Judge and prosecution blew it.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

I hate these type of people with a white hot passion. Thought the comment was dispicable. Latin jury, pinata in the front yard. When they want fair and equal treatment; don't look at the race. When it fits their agenda; look at the race! I hope hell's furnace is well stoked for that guy. That garbage trial set back race relations and widened a chasm that was already hard to bridge.

Not familiar with CA criminal law, but
1)Why no redirect after cross on several witnesses? They knew a hard cross was coming; let em take their shots and re-affirm the professionalism of the invesrigators.
2)Saw weak arguments against defense motions. And don't remember hearing any objections to defense questions. Prosecution looked more frustrated than prepared.

 

[coach66]

He still didn't get what he deserved.

Nobody ever loved themselves as much as OJ.

 

[vhdawg]

Not to complicate this discussion any more than it already is, but:

1. The De La Beckwith analogy seems proper, but it is not.
2. He had an all white jury that voted 11-1 to convict. The one hold out said later she couldn't convict a minister of murder. The point is, the evidence indicated "guilty" and 11 white jurors voted guilty. The one holdout showed no evidence of voting against his guilt due to racism.
3. OJ was guilty. His jury did not convict him because he was a black man.

Sorry to interject days later, but you're correct on #2. My grandfather was on the first de la Beckwith jury and says there was one person who refused to vote guilty. Just kept shaking his/her head and saying "he didn't do it".

 

[amcdan2000]

Ito let that trial get out of hand at the beginning. The jurors knew why Darden was all of sudden there because he wasnt part of the prosecution's original team. To hear one of the jurors say "why should they care if a black man killed a white woman?"

 

[dawgstudent]

I laughed when he talked about OJ putting on the glove. He stood up and paraded when he realized it wouldn't fit.

 

[coach66]

It was a lost cause when they decided to have the trial in downtown LA, and

Select the jury from that area. They should have moved it to Fresno or Berkley, or some remote town and selected a jury that was racially balanced.

 

[Dawgzilla]

The prosecution typically cannot request a change of venue. A Defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to be tried in the district where the crime allegedly occurred. A Defendant may claim that he cannot get a fair trial in that district and ask for the trial to be moved, but the prosecution cannot ask for a district where they think they will more likely get a conviction. They did not have to hold the trial downtown, since the murders occurred in Brentwood, but they probably couldn't leave Los Angeles County without Simpson's consent.

I don't know the location of the other courthouses in the county.

 

[Dawgzilla]

Ito did a terrible job, and his wife failed to disclose a potential conflict of interest with Mark Furman being a witness. While you have to give a Defendant a chance to defend himself, I don't know any judges who would have allowed the trial to take nine months.